A Global Warming voice of reason?

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Lord Lawson claims climate change hysteria heralds a 'new age of unreason'

Not only have our main political parties unquestioningly accepted the more extreme claims of the threat posed by global warming, as exemplified by the Treasury's Stern Review or Al Gore's alarmist film. Our politicians have similarly endorsed without a murmur all the steps now being taken to avert this predicted catastrophe - which, if carried through, can only mean a dramatic transformation in our way of life.

Only one senior political figure in Britain has dared stand apart from this stifling orthodoxy: Nigel Lawson, now Lord Lawson of Blaby, who as Margaret Thatcher's Chancellor presided over the renaissance of our economy in the 1980s.

Clicky

Me : About bloody time!! One of his main agruments is around the new Quasi Religion of Global Warming and asserts that if anyone takes a counter or questioning stance, they are seen as herotics.

Quote

He ends by describing "the new religion of global warming" as "the Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story and a best-seller. It contains a grain of truth and a mountain of nonsense.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kschilk 0]

...afraid I'll have to agree with that but I'd consider it more along the lines of "the Titanic, of environmentalism"...and there really aren't enough lifeboats, for all the "Chicken Littles". Gore's a slippery one, though....he'll get away with the loot.

"T'was ever thus."

[GQ_jumper 4]

Gore didn't get away with anything, the creators of South Park saw right through him, he got slammed straight off the top rope

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[jcd11235 0]

Yet another claim that global warming is not real, and, as expected, relied entirely on rhetoric instead of any scientific evidence.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Yet another claim that global warming is not real, and, as expected, relied entirely on rhetoric instead of any scientific evidence.

SO, you're saying it's heresy?

To make more commentary, there are MANY reasons to call for a more deliberate approach.

What's the economy like right now? This is the bounceback from the "irrational exuberance" of housing. "Do something now before it's too late. Don't miss the boat."

People mention "consensus." There's another word for it - "bandwagon."

Fuel prices are edging ever higher, which is the market force at work and one of the best things that could happen to the anti-petrochemical industry. Which, let's face it, is public enemy No. 1 for the "green" movement.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

SO, you're saying it's heresy?

No, that would imply that global warming is some sort of religion. It is not, regardless of the rhetoric of the article. It is a topic of science. As such, any claims made to the contradiction of the general consensus of climatologists should be based on peer reviewed scientific study if they are to be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, people respond better to rhetoric than to scientific studies. However, public opinion doesn't affect whether or not global warming is real or if man is a major contributor.

Personally, I have a tough time buying into the idea that the majority of climatologists are all a part of a big conspiracy theory.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Yet another claim that global warming is not real, and, as expected, relied entirely on rhetoric instead of any scientific evidence.

Funny, the "deniers" dont agree with the supporters but they tend to be much more civil in the debate

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

SO, you're saying it's heresy?

No, that would imply that global warming is some sort of religion. It is not, regardless of the rhetoric of the article. It is a topic of science. As such, any claims made to the contradiction of the general consensus of climatologists should be based on peer reviewed scientific study if they are to be taken seriously.You say this as if science only points to this conclusion. It does not. But, when any study does come out questioning the GWing religion claims of, bought out by big oil and other bs is all that is heard. So, the GWing supporters find it easy to "dimiss" or explain away any thing with which they do not agree

Unfortunately, people respond better to rhetoric than to scientific studies. However, public opinion doesn't affect whether or not global warming is real or if man is a major contributor.

Personally, I have a tough time buying into the idea that the majority of climatologists are all a part of a big conspiracy theory. Here is where you fail with the "majority" or "most" say rhwroeic (your word not mine)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

Lord Lawson is a very smart person and I personally find it very refreshing that someone of his stature should enter the debate.

There are a couple of sides to this debate (and I'm sure that the truth lies somewhere in between) but currently the loud, dogmatic eco-terrorists are having their day. So, I for one welcome an intelligent counter to the doom-sayers (and lets not forget, a large number of them have a major financial axe to grind in this area!!! - The Green Industry is a multi Million £ band wagon).

What we need are Open minds.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

SO, you're saying it's heresy?

No, that would imply that global warming is some sort of religion. It is not, regardless of the rhetoric of the article. It is a topic of science. As such, any claims made to the contradiction of the general consensus of climatologists should be based on peer reviewed scientific study if they are to be taken seriously.

Unfortunately, people respond better to rhetoric than to scientific studies. However, public opinion doesn't affect whether or not global warming is real or if man is a major contributor.

Personally, I have a tough time buying into the idea that the majority of climatologists are all a part of a big conspiracy theory.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

More to consider then the words "most", or "all" or (my favorite) "consensus" are used in the GWing debate

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

Yes!! and that is, what I believe Nigel Lawson is saying too.

From his article, I read that his main concern is in the stiffeling of debate and loudly denouncing anyone who would dare to put forward a counter agrument.. And that surpresses all of our freedoms of speech.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You say this as if science only points to this conclusion. It does not. But, when any study does come out questioning the GWing religion claims of, bought out by big oil and other bs is all that is heard. So, the GWing supporters find it easy to "dimiss" or explain away any thing with which they do not agree

Please link to some of these peer reviewed studies.

Quote

Here is where you fail with the "majority" or "most" say rhwroeic (your word not mine)

Huh?!? Can you please translate that sentence into English? I'm not sure what rhwroeic means, but I'm sure I didn't use the word in my post.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Here is where you fail with the "majority" or "most" say rhwroeic (your word not mine)

Huh?!? Can you please translate that sentence into English? I'm not sure what rhwroeic means, but I'm sure I didn't use the word in my post.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. Not just the word "rhwroeic" (Is that Welsh?) but the entire structure of the sentence.

What is rushmc's first language?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nerdgirl 0]

Reason? No.
Honesty about policy choices? Yes!

I think it’s a great article. Thank you. It gets to underlying issues: policy choices.

Lord Lawson acknowledges the contested policy choices.
He explicitly states: “if carried through, [policy choices] can only mean a dramatic transformation in our way of life.”

The article readily acknowledges: “we are just starting to appreciate the colossal cost of the measures being taken.” And, “Lord Lawson discusses the familiar implausibility of reaching any worldwide agreement on massive cuts in CO2, when developing countries such as China and India cannot see why they should be denied the hope of emulating the living standards of the West.”

Climate change policy discussions are a fascinating example of where the science has become the topic of discussion rather than talking about the policy choices – it’s a ‘bait-n-switch’ in which “contested science” has become a stand-in for discussion of contested policy choices. Contested, uncomfortable, and potentially economically painful choices.

There’s an interesting (to me) parallel to the discussion of policy decisions and intelligence/intelligence analysis with respect to Iraq. Where/when/how does the debate focus on the political decisions and where/when/how does the debate focus on the information that is supposed to inform the decision-makers?

In policy making, I can’t think of a single case in which science was the only consideration, and in policy making, it should *not* be.

I concur with the article w/r/t “the capacity of human beings to adapt to changing temperatures - as we can see from comparing Finland with Singapore.” Further, climate change is likely to benefit some, such as increased growing seasons for higher latitude regions of the northern hemisphere, e.g., Alberta & Saskatchewan. Climate change is likely to suck for the 30+ Pacific Islands only a few about sea level. It didn’t take climate change for humans to drive other species to extinction, to mess up ecosystems, and to collapse civilizations. (None of those are uniquely American or western inventions either.) The planet will survive. The questions are ‘how much is going to cost?’ ‘what form is that cost going to take?” and “for whom?”

To use a phrase invoked here: Lord Lawson “manned up” and acknowledged that he doesn’t like the policy options if the UK prioritizes the science. My agreement or disagreement is irrelevant; I do, however, respect his forthright acknowledgement of the policy choices and his prioritization.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SpeedRacer 1]

I think the Welsh word was an attempt to type the word "rhetoric". A word which jcd11235 DID use in his post. I'm not sure what the rest of the sentence means, though.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Lord Lawson is a very smart person and I personally find it very refreshing that someone of his stature should enter the debate.

I never intended to imply that he is not a smart person. It typically requires intelligence to write believable rhetoric.

Quote

There are a couple of sides to this debate (and I'm sure that the truth lies somewhere in between) but currently the loud, dogmatic eco-terrorists are having their day. So, I for one welcome an intelligent counter to the doom-sayers

An intelligent counter would be welcome. Unfortunately, that's not what the article offers. It offers rhetoric without any supporting scientific evidence. It attempts to malign the IPCC on the hundreds of contributing scientists without offering any peer reviewed study to counter the IPCC's claims. In short, the article is rubbish, no more, no less.

Quote

[L]ets not forget, a large number of them have a major financial axe to grind in this area!!! - The Green Industry is a multi Million £ band wagon.

Let's also not forget that the fossil fuel industry is a multi-Billion dollar (or £) bandwagon. Science will get funding for research regardless of what is being researched. There is no reason to believe that global warming is the only area in which governments are interested.

Quote

What we need are Open minds.

Or at least minds that understand the difference between science and rhetoric.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Again, please link to the peer reviewed scientific studies that debunk global warming and man as a significant contributor thereof. When it comes to science, it is data that counts.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yes!! and that is, what I believe Nigel Lawson is saying too.

From his article, I read that his main concern is in the stiffeling of debate and loudly denouncing anyone who would dare to put forward a counter agrument.. And that surpresses all of our freedoms of speech.

A real counter argument would be backed by data.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[shropshire 0]

Great response... except it's currently only Perceived Science. It's not unequivocal fact (and may never be).

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Lindsey 0]

It amazes me how many people develop some kind of firm position in this debate who have no understanding of the science behind it. Sometimes I think it'd be fun to jump in on these debates, just for the hell of it. But even though I'm a well-educated person, I'm not educated on this topic. Any opinion I (and very obviously many others who are much more vocal than I) form is based on my thoughts about the credibility of people who DO have informed opinions. I think this is one of those areas where too many folks form a political opinion and then try to back it up with SOME kind of evidence, no matter how sketchy.

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[shropshire 0]

Prove to me that the GW is happening.

How do you measure the temperature of the Earth?
Do you do it at a number of descrete points? - How many, How far apart, How often? What level of accuracy will you accept?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

Politicians do that ALL of the time and unfortunately, that's how they set our policies ... not very exact is it?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,120]

>Funny, the "deniers" dont agree with the supporters but they tend to
>be much more civil in the debate.

You must have overlooked all the personal attacks against Al Gore based on his advocacy for climate change mitigation. A quick forum search will reveal dozens (some even made by you!)

[billvon 3,120]

>I think this is one of those areas where too many folks form a
>political opinion and then try to back it up with SOME kind of evidence, no
>matter how sketchy.

Yes. And that's a much lazier way to debate, but in many ways is a lot easier - because there is no requirement to hew to any of the science. Scientists have to operate within a consistent framework of science, where arguments are not mutable into the excuse du jour.

Denier: There's only one problem with global warming - it stopped in 1998!

Scientist: 2005 was hotter than 1998 per NASA.

Denier: Well, so what. Maybe it's the sun getting hotter, and not CO2! After all, one of the Martian ice caps is melting.

Scientist: A recent comprehensive study showed no significant increase in insolation during the past 50 years or so.

Denier: OK. So it's probably a natural warming cycle. The planet has warmed up before, you know.

Scientist: We are currently warming faster than at any time in the past 50,000 years.

Denier: Well, wait - here's a website that says we're not getting warmer at all!

Scientist: Didn't you admit a second ago that it was warming, but that it was natural!

Denier: Maybe I did. But see? That's a CONTRADICTION! There's no consensus!